AUTHOR: TYLER DURDEN
Written by Thaddeus G. McCotter through American Greatness,
[This is the first of a two-part series on 2 NATO issues between us in Ukraine.]
In consequence to an earlier case of Russian aggression, in his study to the American people of 25 July 1961 "Report to the American people on the Berlin crisis" President John F. Kennedy warned: "If there is 1 way to war, it is the way of weakness and disunity".
Today This is simply a informing that cannot stay unnoticed by NATO, due to the fact that the Alliance sees cracks in its unity about how to defend Ukraine, and the Russian aggressor threatens to extend the war beyond current borders and conventional weapons.
The North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) was founded after planet War II to defend the United States and our Western European allies against russian aggression and possible invasion.
Following the fall of the communist regime, NATO spent the next 3 decades, extending its membership ranks to east Europe, by combating terrorism and engaging in the existential search for a fresh function in the defence of the free world.
However, Russian rematch never made NATO's main goal obsolete.
Under Putin's leadership, Russia invaded Georgia, Crimea and now Ukraine – all in a place that Russian Drive He called his country "near abroad."
specified Russian aggression and further territorial ambition had a affirmative effect on NATO, refocusing it on its first and never abandoned missionDetracting its members from the self-appointed empire of the east imperial empire, which was seen as erstwhile and in the future.
With respect to the Russian perspective, whether in the times of the russian Union or the present Russian Federation, NATO has always remained a major and direct obstacle to its expansionist goals.
There is no exaggeration in saying that if Putin could accomplish 1 goal, namely to guarantee Russia's safety and to accomplish its imperial objectives, it would be to destruct NATO.
From a military point of view However, it is not up to Russia to defeat NATO.
Repeating what president Lincoln said about the U.S. military defeat, only NATO can defeat NATO.
Again, it will not happen due to Russian military weapons.
This is due to the fact that NATO is not just a military alliance. NATO is besides a political alliance.
In the current reaction to Russia's criminal invasion of Ukraine, politics seems to be NATO's Achilles heel.
Putin knows this, and he's brazenly turning his NATO antagonists against each other.
The first crack in NATO's consequence to Russia's invasion of Ukraine was the decision not to offer the besieged country membership in the Western Alliance.
The reason is elementary: according to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, "collective defence means that an attack on 1 associate of the Alliance is considered an attack on all members of the Alliance".
Thus, if the Russian invasion continues to take place during the period of Ukraine's entry into NATO, the remaining members of it would be considered to be at war with Russia.
It is no wonder that NATO prefers to proceed to defend Ukraine together in a replacement war against Russia, alternatively than to make a disastrous collective declaration that allied states are under attack by Russia and are at war with Russia.
Not wanting to declare planet War III, NATO is not fascinated by Ukraine's request for membership.
As reported Kyiv Post header"some in the West have asked president Zelenski not to put force on individual allies to support Ukraine's final, circumstantial accession schedule".
In NATO membership, "some" are the USA and Germany:
"United States and Germany call on president Volodymyr Zelenski not to request 'impossible' – a clear timeframe for Ukraine's admission to NATO at the Alliance summit, reported on 28 May British paper The Telegraph, citing your own sources.
Of course, where there are some, there are others.
By Kyiv Post: "A fewer associate States, including Estonia, the United Kingdom, Poland, Canada, Lithuania and France, are in favour of increased support for Kiev, possibly extending it to Ukraine".
In the military-political alliance, in which there are "some" and "other", the inevitable appears:
"However, according to sources [The TelegraphBefore the NATO summit in Vilnius in July 2023, countries that support Ukraine's accession to the alliance put strong force on another members on this issue, leading to break in military block". [Kurss me.]
As requested, Putin He exacerbated the force on this Italian divided in the NATO alliance: "Russian president Vladimir Putin said Kiev's accession to the Moscow Alliance would endanger Moscow and will not increase Ukraine's safety due to the fact that he would make "additional tension on the global arena".
Why is NATO afraid of Ukraine joining the Alliance?
"At the NATO summit in Washington, which will take place on 9-11 July, Ukraine will not be offered anything that would let it to advance on the way to membership due to concerns that the alliance could be drawn into the war with Russia."
As a military and political organization, NATO was able to diplomatically cover up the dispute and suspend the final decision on Ukraine's membership.
"The Telegraph" writes that at the NATO summit in Washington, D.C., the Alliance leaders will propose to Ukraine what is now called a "bridge" or "road" to membership to show support for this process.
The current support package will item "the ability of Ukraine to choose its own future" and show that "the way to membership is becoming shorter...".
While temporarily covering up this Italian division in NATO's alliance, what does not shorten, but expands, is another gap around Ukraine, which is even more burning and dangerous: Ukraine's usage of NATO weapons against hostile targets in Russia.
We will address this issue next week in the second and final parts of our series on NATO-sharing debates on Ukraine.
Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) served in Michigan's 11th congressional territory from 2003 to 2012, and served as president of the Republican Political Commission of the home of Representatives.He is not a lobbyist, he is simply a frequent public talker and moderator of seminars on public policy; and a Monday co-host of the "John Batchelor Radio Show", among various media appearances.
Translated by Google Translator
source:https://www.zerohedge.com/
